How well do critical care audit and feedback interventions adhere to best practice? Development and application of the REFLECT-52 evaluation tool.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Foster M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369748 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care.ObjectiveTo develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement.ResultsThe final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5).ConclusionWe report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.
| S-EPMC10387210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Animal-assisted interventions (AAI) in educational and other settings have steadily increased over the last fifty years and a steep rise in AAI has been observed in many countries and settings in recent years. Surprisingly, while different providers and organisations provide a range of guidelines, no unified, standardised guidelines or risk assessment tools for AAI exist. This means that in practice AAI takes place in an unregulated manner and without a gold standard of best practice. In addition, knowledge of which interventions are effective is still scarce and the mechanisms of successful interventions are not yet fully understood. This is partly due to AAI being a relatively new research field and standards of research and practice have often lacked rigour in the past. Furthermore, knowledge and experience of providers undertaking interventions varies greatly as there is no standardised training either. We address the striking lack of standardised guidelines and procedures. In all AAI, high importance should be placed on safety and welfare of all involved. Children and other AAI participants, staff and animals should be given equal consideration when assessing risks and welfare needs. To ensure safe AAI worldwide, we provide urgently needed guidelines on best practice in relation to risk assessment, safeguarding and animal welfare priorities. The guidelines were developed for a large-scale longitudinal, randomised controlled trial AAI project and are relevant to AAIs within educational and other settings. We also provide the first set of comprehensive risk assessment and animal welfare tools to achieve consistent welfare and safety standards for best practice across educational and other settings around the world.
| S-EPMC7341237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPharmacists, as experts in medicines, are increasingly employed in general practices and undertake a range of responsibilities. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are effective in achieving behaviour change, including prescribing. The extent of pharmacist involvement in A&F interventions to influence prescribing is unknown. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of A&F interventions involving pharmacists on prescribing in general practice compared with no A&F/usual care and to describe features of A&F interventions and pharmacist characteristics.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (Social) Science Citation Indexes, ISI Web of Science) were searched (2012, 2019, 2020). Cochrane systematic review methods were applied to trial identification, selection, and risk of bias. Results were summarized descriptively and heterogeneity was assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted where studies were sufficiently homogenous in design and outcome.ResultsEleven cluster-randomized studies from 9 countries were included. Risk of bias across most domains was low. Interventions focussed on older patients, specific clinical area(s), or specific medications. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed improved prescribing outcomes (pooled risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.94). Interventions including both verbal and written feedback or computerized decision support for prescribers were more effective. Pharmacists who received study-specific training, provided ongoing support to prescribers or reviewed prescribing for individual patients, contributed to more effective interventions.ConclusionsA&F interventions involving pharmacists can lead to small improvements in evidence-based prescribing in general practice settings. Future implementation of A&F within general practice should compare different ways of involving pharmacists to determine how to optimize effectiveness.PRISMA-compliant abstract included in Supplementary Material 1.
| S-EPMC10745261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is among the most widely used implementation strategies, providing healthcare professionals with summaries of their practice performance to prompt behaviour change and optimize care. Wide variability in effectiveness of A&F has spurred efforts to explore why some A&F interventions are more effective than others. Unpacking the variability of the content of A&F interventions in terms of their component behaviours change techniques (BCTs) may help advance our understanding of how A&F works best. This study aimed to systematically specify BCTs in A&F interventions targeting healthcare professional practice change.MethodsWe conducted a directed content analysis of intervention descriptions in 287 randomized trials included in an ongoing Cochrane systematic review update of A&F interventions (searched up to June 2020). Three trained researchers identified and categorized BCTs in all trial arms (treatment & control/comparator) using the 93-item BCT Taxonomy version 1. The original BCT definitions and examples in the taxonomy were adapted to include A&F-specific decision rules and examples. Two additional BCTs ('Education (unspecified)' and 'Feedback (unspecified)') were added, such that 95 BCTs were considered for coding.ResultsIn total, 47/95 BCTs (49%) were identified across 360 treatment arms at least once (median = 5.0, IQR = 2.3, range = 129 per arm). The most common BCTs were 'Feedback on behaviour' (present 89% of the time; e.g. feedback on drug prescribing), 'Instruction on how to perform the behaviour' (71%; e.g. issuing a clinical guideline), 'Social comparison' (52%; e.g. feedback on performance of peers), 'Credible source' (41%; e.g. endorsements from respected professional body), and 'Education (unspecified)' (31%; e.g. giving a lecture to staff). A total of 130/287 (45%) control/comparator arms contained at least one BCT (median = 2.0, IQR = 3.0, range = 0-15 per arm), of which the most common were identical to those identified in treatment arms.ConclusionsA&F interventions to improve healthcare professional practice include a moderate range of BCTs, focusing predominantly on providing behavioural feedback, sharing guidelines, peer comparison data, education, and leveraging credible sources. We encourage the use of our A&F-specific list of BCTs to improve knowledge of what is being delivered in A&F interventions. Our study provides a basis for exploring which BCTs are associated with intervention effectiveness.Trial registrationsN/A.
| S-EPMC10664600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn Ontario, Canada, a government agency known as Ontario Health is responsible for making audit and feedback reports available to all family physicians to encourage ongoing quality improvement. The confidential report provides summary data on 3 key areas of practice: safe prescription, cancer screening, and diabetes management.ObjectiveThis report was redesigned to improve its usability in line with evidence. The objective of this study was to explore how the redesign was perceived, with an emphasis on recipients' understanding of the report and their engagement with it.MethodsWe conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with family physicians who had experience with both versions of the report recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. We analyzed the transcripts following an emergent and iterative approach.ResultsSaturation was reached after 17 family physicians participated. In total, 2 key themes emerged as factors that affected the perceived usability of the report: alignment between the report and the recipients' expectations and capacity to engage in quality improvement. Family physicians expected the report and its quality indicators to reflect best practices and to be valid and accurate. They also expected the report to offer feedback on the clinical activities they perceived to be within their control to change. Furthermore, family physicians expected the goal of the report to be aligned with their perspective on feasible quality improvement activities. Most of these expectations were not met, limiting the perceived usability of the report. The capacity to engage with audit and feedback was hindered by several organizational and physician-level barriers, including the lack of fit with the existing workflow, competing priorities, time constraints, and insufficient skills for bridging the gaps between their data and the corresponding desired actions.ConclusionsDespite recognized improvements in the design of the report to better align with best practices, it was not perceived as highly usable. Improvements in the presentation of the data could not overcome misalignment with family physicians' expectations or the limited capacity to engage with the report. Integrating iterative evaluations informed by user-centered design can complement evidence-based guidance for implementation strategies. Creating a space for bringing together audit and feedback designers and recipients may help improve usability and effectiveness.
| S-EPMC9947922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe describe the creation and evaluation of a personal audit and feedback (A&F) tool for anesthesiologists.MethodsA survey aimed at capturing barriers for personal improvement efforts and feedback preferences was administered to attending anesthesiologists. The results informed the design and implementation of 4 dashboards that display information on individual practice characteristics as well as comparative performance on several quality metrics. The dashboards' usability was then tested using the human-centered design framework.ResultsAnesthesiologists listed lack of information on current practice as the main barrier for improvement. Regarding usability, participants gave the dashboards an average score of 3.8 (scale 1-5) on consistency, learnability, and information organization, and performed the assigned tasks well, with an average score of 89% (range 79-100%).ConclusionsWe describe the design, implementation, and usability testing of an innovative tool that utilizes data derived from the electronic health record (EHR) system to provide A&F to anesthesiology providers.
| S-EPMC6951966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is a common strategy for helping health providers to implement evidence into practice. Despite being extensively studied, health care A&F interventions remain variably effective, with overall effect sizes that have not improved since 2003. Contributing to this stagnation is the fact that most health care A&F interventions have largely been designed without being informed by theoretical understanding from the behavioral and social sciences. To determine if the trend can be improved, the objective of this study was to develop a list of testable, theory-informed hypotheses about how to design more effective A&F interventions.MethodsUsing purposive sampling, semi-structured 60-90-min telephone interviews were conducted with experts in theories related to A&F from a range of fields (e.g., cognitive, health and organizational psychology, medical decision-making, economics). Guided by detailed descriptions of A&F interventions from the health care literature, interviewees described how they would approach the problem of designing improved A&F interventions. Specific, theory-informed hypotheses about the conditions for effective design and delivery of A&F interventions were elicited from the interviews. The resulting hypotheses were assigned by three coders working independently into themes, and categories of themes, in an iterative process.ResultsWe conducted 28 interviews and identified 313 theory-informed hypotheses, which were placed into 30 themes. The 30 themes included hypotheses related to the following five categories: A&F recipient (seven themes), content of the A&F (ten themes), process of delivery of the A&F (six themes), behavior that was the focus of the A&F (three themes), and other (four themes).ConclusionsWe have identified a set of testable, theory-informed hypotheses from a broad range of behavioral and social science that suggest conditions for more effective A&F interventions. This work demonstrates the breadth of perspectives about A&F from non-healthcare-specific disciplines in a way that yields testable hypotheses for healthcare A&F interventions. These results will serve as the foundation for further work seeking to set research priorities among the A&F research community.
| S-EPMC5622490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) interventions are one of the most common approaches for implementing evidence-based practices. A key barrier to more effective A&F interventions is the lack of a theory-guided approach to the accumulation of evidence. Recent interviews with theory experts identified 313 theory-informed hypotheses, spread across 30 themes, about how to create more effective A&F interventions. In the current survey, we sought to elicit from stakeholders which hypotheses were most likely to advance the field if studied further.MethodsFrom the list of 313, three members of the research team identified 216 that were clear and distinguishable enough for prioritization. A web-based survey was then sent to 211 A&F intervention stakeholders asking them to choose up to 50 'priority' hypotheses following the header "A&F interventions will be more effective if…". Analyses included frequencies of endorsement of the individual hypotheses and themes into which they were grouped.Results68 of the 211 invited participants responded to the survey. Seven hypotheses were chosen by > 50% of respondents, including A&F interventions will be more effective… "if feedback is provided by a trusted source"; "if recipients are involved in the design/development of the feedback intervention"; "if recommendations related to the feedback are based on good quality evidence"; "if the behaviour is under the control of the recipient"; "if it addresses barriers and facilitators (drivers) to behaviour change"; "if it suggests clear action plans"; and "if target/goal/optimal rates are clear and explicit". The most endorsed theme was Recipient Priorities (four hypotheses were chosen 92 times as a 'priority' hypotheses).ConclusionsThis work determined a set of hypotheses thought by respondents to be to be most likely to advance the field through future A&F intervention research. This work can inform a coordinated research agenda that may more efficiently lead to more effective A&F interventions.
| S-EPMC7805176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAdopting an attributional perspective, the current article investigates how audit and feedback group sessions contribute to general practitioners' (GPs) motivation to change their practice behaviour to improve care. We focus on the contributions of the audit and feedback itself (content) and the group discussion (process).MethodsFour focus groups, comprising a total of 39 participating Dutch GPs, discussed and compared audit and feedback of their practices. The focus groups were analysed thematically.ResultsAudit and feedback contributed to GPs' motivation to change in two ways: by raising awareness about aspects of their current care practice and by providing indications of the possible impact of change. For these contributions to play out, the audit and feedback should be reliable and valid, specific, recent and recurrent and concern GPs' own practices or practices within their own influence sphere. Care behaviour attributed to external, uncontrollable or unstable causes would not induce change. The added value of the group is twofold as well: group discussion contributed to GPs' motivation to change by providing a frame of reference and by affording insights that participants would not have been able to achieve on their own.ConclusionsIn audit and feedback group sessions, both audit and feedback information and group discussion can valuably contribute to GPs' motivation to change care practice behaviour. Peer interaction can positively contribute to explore alternative practices and avenues for improvement. Local or regional peer meetings would be beneficial in facilitating reflection and discussion. An important avenue for future studies is to explore the contribution of audit and feedback and small-group discussion to actual practice change.
| S-EPMC6549704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback interventions in healthcare have been found to be effective, but there has been little progress with respect to understanding their mechanisms of action or identifying their key 'active ingredients.'DiscussionGiven the increasing use of audit and feedback to improve quality of care, it is imperative to focus further research on understanding how and when it works best. In this paper, we argue that continuing the 'business as usual' approach to evaluating two-arm trials of audit and feedback interventions against usual care for common problems and settings is unlikely to contribute new generalizable findings. Future audit and feedback trials should incorporate evidence- and theory-based best practices, and address known gaps in the literature.SummaryWe offer an agenda for high-priority research topics for implementation researchers that focuses on reviewing best practices for designing audit and feedback interventions to optimize effectiveness.
| S-EPMC3896824 | biostudies-literature